Press Reaction In 1980 To Death Of A Princess | Death Of A Princess | FRONTLINE | PBS "The Gate of an Arabian princess: a 'docu-drama'" Christian Science Monitor May 9, 1980 by Arthur Unger One of the most controversial -- and timely -- films in the short history of the Public Broadcasting Service is being aired on most of that network's affiliates despite protests from the Saudi Arabian government. … Whatever one's reservations may be -- and it is quite possible and proper to question certain aspects of this unusual pseudo-docudrama -- this is a film to see, to analyze, to question on its various implications as a social document, as an informational program, and as an entertainment. In its own exotic way "Princess" may prove to be a landmark film in the development of education-information-entertainment television. But the form itself -- docudrama -- is a problem. Although scripted and performed by professional actors throughout, this kind of program also attempts to convey the feeling of documentary accuracy in the presentation of its topical and often carefully researched subject matter, as well as in its tone.

As a result, the form can be used to distort truth as easily as it can to serve it, leaving the viewer with no way of knowing where accuracy really lies. "Princess" is the superbly photographed story -- a bit Somerset Maugham and a bit of "the lady or the tiger" in character -- of a reporter's five-month search for the truth concerning a Saudi Arabian princess supposedly executed and her boy-lover beheaded because of their three-week adulterous affair. In order for the sentence to be carried out, the teen-age princess had to state three times before a Muslim court that she had committed the crime. Was she an empty-headed child or a better for women's rights? The narrator, called Christopher Ryder in the film's odyssey but clearly filmmaker Antony Thomas, follows all available trails, visits friends, government officials, relatives, women's movement activists in and out of Saudi Arabia, investigates the oddly ambivalent position of women in fundamentalist Muslim states, follows many paths which are obviously untrue or the product of guilt, venom, or imagination. He re-creates in his mind's eye -- and on camera -- all of the supposed happenings and comes to the final conclusion that the real truth may never be known.

… But should it be told in this form? "Death of a Princess" is the ultimate docudrama -- a form which television has expropriated for itself and which it seems to be using and misusing more and more. Many docudramas -- dramatized informational programming -- would much better serve the viewers they were presented in strictly documentary form so that viewers could clearly understand that what they are viewing is fact. In the case of "Princess" and many other recent docudramas, the viewer is left with a hodgepodge conglomeration of real people, fictional characters, real incidents, and dramatized ones which make it absolutely impossible to ascertain where creative license has been taken. (The filmmaker in this case, however, insists that all interviews are based on real ones). … "Death of a Princess" is a TV show to view, ponder, and perhaps learn from, but it is also a major problem for television itself to ponder.

"The Show Must Go On" [Editorial] The Washington Post May 11, 1980 The furor over Saudi Arabia's protests against the showing of "Death of a Princess" by the Public Broadcasting Service is both more and less than it is made out to be. The Saudi protest, and those of its oil partner, the Mobil Corporation, along with some of the heavier interventions of the State Department and certain members of Congress, make it essential that the show be seen on schedule Monday evening. None of this should even be negotiable. The outcry, of course, makes it inevitable that an extra large audience will tune in. The incident is more than it appears to be because, with the power that Saudi oil and financial resources confer, Saudi displeasure can have costly consequences. When the same film was shown in Britain, for instance, the Saudis expelled the British ambassador -- notwithstanding an official apology for the film -- and undertook a line of economic sanctions whose end, to British dismay, is not yet in sight. The incident is -- so far -- less than it appears to be, however, because the official Saudi protests against the American showing have, by contrast, been phrased in very hedged terms.

The Saudis have criticized a "docu-drama," which they find replete with "false episodes, serious inaccuracies and outright prejudice." But on the record at least, they have not asked PBS to cancel the show. They have asked that PBS and other news media "determine for themselves what the fictitious items and distortions are and … not report them to the American public as fact"-- to which the immediate response must be: how else can this be done except by canceling the show? The Saudis would also have liked a statement by the U.S. government characterizing the film as "distorted and inaccurate." The State Department declined to go that far. But in a way this would have been preferable to its direct approach to PBS with a request that PBS assure its viewers "a full and balanced presentation." PBS intends to do that anyway, at least by their earliest public statements, by conducting a discussion of the show on the air after it is run, and it would have been well for the State Department to have left it alone in the first place.

The Saudis indicated that, though they are affronted by the show, and perhaps worried by the way it will play into an internal debate of their own, they did not wish to make the incident a test of their relationship with the United States. Perhaps they feel that American-Saudi relations are already under enough strain. By contrast, Mobil in its ad has raised the stakes, declaring that "the best interest of the United States" is involved, and urges PBS to "review its decision to run this film." If Americans decline to delete television programs because foreign governments object to them, they will certainly decline when American corporations object, even corporations like Mobil, which heavily supports PBS. (We note, by the way, that it seems a grotesque "defense" of the First Amendment for a court in Texas to have ordered the film to be shown.) Perhaps Mobil is out in front acting for the Saudis, making the threats the retiring Saudis prefer not to be heard uttering in public themselves.

If that is so, we are all better off replying just to the Saudis and telling them -- as now PBS is -- that the show is receiving precisely the critical dissection the Saudis have said it deserves and that good journalistic practice would have brought this about anyway, and that the show will go on. "Death of a Princess" [Editorial] The Economist April 19, 1980 Once upon a time Orson Welles, adapting H. G. Wells for radio, frightened New Yorkers into thinking that the Martians had landed. Nowadays our senses are so benumbed by the invasion of fact, fiction and the something in between from our television screens that the entry of true-life Martians might be dismissed as an intemperate lead into the next Star Wars sequel. A great grey area has emerged where contemporary history shades into invention. Saudi Arabian protests about Antony Thomas's "Death of a Princess", a two-hour "dramatised documentary" first shown in Britain on April 9th, are beneficial in that they have generated a sharp controversy about television's singular capacity for blending what might have happened into what actually did.

Television is not the only offender: writers experiment with what Norman Mailer calls "faction"; newspapers, sinners long before radio was invented, call it "informed speculation". But television, by entwining news film with feature film, can multiply both the impact and the confusion. Mr. Thomas's film is in a special category, both because it deals with very recent events, and because most of those events are mysterious. It is known that, in 1977, a Saudi princess and her lover were publicly killed as punishment for their adultery. A bystander filmed the killings. Mr. Thomas sought to pursue the background to this brutal, medieval happening. But almost everyone he asked about it told a different story. There was no noble, romantic tale. There was plenty of wish-fulfilment by those who wanted to make the princess a martyr in the cause of freedom. The most plausible version is the simplest, and the most savage: a frivolous girl, caught out illicitly seeking pleasure, paid for it with her own and her companion's life. Rather than drop the story, the filmmaker decided to produce his search as a sort of play, having both himself and those he interviewed played by actors.

He also "reconstructed" a few selected episodes from the stories he was told. He persuaded the Associated Television Corporation to put up ï¿½100,000, and raised the same again, in undisclosed proportions, from television companies in Holland, America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Penalties of freedom Saudi Arabia is an easy country to offend and could also be an expensive one. Britain and the other five countries involved in producing the film would be badly hurt if Saudi Arabia made up its mind to punish them. Quite correctly, the British and Dutch television companies decided that this was no reason for not showing the film; the American showing is scheduled for May 12th. The British foreign office, no less correctly, sent carefully worded messages expressing regret at any offence caused to the Saudis. The Saudis, secretive and ingrown, are sensitive in a way that self-confident-bordering-on-smug countries such as Britain find hard to understand.

But this, too, was no reason for not making the film, though it will be a pity if the film feeds the wretched legend that Arabs are rich, hypocritical hedonists descending in a body on London's nightclubs (apart from being a wild exaggeration, the legend, by encouraging too many Britons to be rude and greedy, is slowly keeping Arab visitors away). A sensitive subject merits sensitive handling but it should not, on that account, be left alone. The Saudis appear to have chosen a more appropriate form of punishment than the snatching away of trade or contracts or oil. On Tuesday they announced that the General Secretariat of the Islamic Press in Jeddah intended to file a legal case against ATV. Various people are striving to change Saudi minds but if, improbably, the suit comes to court it will make intriguing hearing. One of the film's most gripping sequences was almost certainly unfair: scenes of the bored princesses at home listening and dancing to pop music were followed by their predatory drive into the desert to pick, behind their veils, a temporary mate. The evidence for the vacuity of the princesses' lives is more substantial than for the promiscuity of those desert raids.

The Saudis and their supporters argue that "Death of a Princess" was an attack on Islam as well as on the Saudi kingdom. Many other Moslem Arabs disagree. For the criticism of Saudi Arabia underlying the film was not that it followed Islamic law but that it deviated from it. Islamic law to most westerners means Islamic punishment: a simplified myth that this film will have fostered. The punishments are fierce, as corporal and capital punishment is bound to be in any place and by any means. The saving grace is that, for adultery, the burden of proof is almost impossible to sustain: conviction calls for four eyewitnesses to the act or a thrice-repeated confession. Princess Misha [sic] was not observed, did not, it seems, confess, and was not, perhaps, even tried. The film's judgment is that she and her lover were executed without trial on the orders of her grandfather, King Khalid's elder brother. That, if true, is not the law of Islam, it is the law of the tribe.

"A Saudi Squall on Public TV" [Op-Ed/Editorial] The New York Times May 9, 1980 … The world being what it is, and oil being oil, many now implore American public television not to risk further Saudi wrath by showing "Death of a Princess," as scheduled, next Monday evening. Surely there is only one response consistent with American principle and self-respect: the show has to go on. That so basic a point needs restatement tells a good deal about the price America is paying for its addiction to imported oil. A few years ago, Turkey protested the showing of "Midnight Express," alleging the film gave a lurid picture of Turkish law. But there were then no protesting advertisements and no members of Congress ready to oblige by encroaching upon the Bill of Rights. Saudi Arabia wants Americans to respect and understand its feudal traditions. Very well. But Americans can also insist on a measure of Saudi understanding of our democracy. What is obviously a difficult relationship can become impossible if Saudi rulers are led to believe that American liberties are subject to their veto. The dollars, weapons and friendship that Saudi Arabia obtains from the United States come to it under a Constitution which separates press and television from state.

This rudimentary principle lies at the core of the argument, whatever the merits. or flaws, of "Death of a Princess." The flaws in the film could hardly be more worrisome than the alacrity of some Americans to suppress its showing. Mobil Oil, which generously supports public television but now implores it to censor itself, may be simply defending an obvious business interest. No such excuse exists for members of Congress who have joined the chorus, or for the few public television stations that intend to black out the program. When a PBS station drops a show because it may affront Saudi Arabia, then the jibes about the "Petroleum Broadcasting Service" acquire a bitter truth. Some maintain that the two-hour film is neither fair nor factual, and that its dramatized form exalts entertainment at the expense of information. These misgivings are fair enough, at any time, about any television documentary. They clearly justify the roundtable discussion of the program and of Saudi society that will follow the Monday broadcast. Indeed, the debate about this program could usefully extend to the larger question of how public television sets its journalistic agenda. How do underwriting pressures -- governmental and corporate -- influence the choice of documentary subjects?

How can PBS be insulated from this kind of uproar? And how should its responsibility be judged? Under no circumstances, however, should these difficult questions be confused with diplomatic expediency. "Protector of the Constitution" [Op-Ed/Editorial] The New York Times The Hon. Warren M. Christopher Department of State Dear Mr. Secretary: It was no great surprise that Mobil would take out an ad to express dismay about the forthcoming PBS broadcast of "Death of a Princess." Mobil enjoys the benefits of the Constitution of the United States, but it has no particular duty to protect that Constitution. Mobil is, after all, a corporation, not the Government. But we frankly grimaced when you made public a letter to PBS expressing your views about the same program, which concerns the execution in 1977 of a Saudi princess for adultery. As you conceded, the State Department has no power to censor either the press or television. It ought to be obvious to any high school student that the Constitution forbids such meddling. Why then did you send the letter? It reads to us like one of those "cc" missives, written primarily for their effect on the person to whom one sends a carbon copy.

The "cc" in this case, obviously, was the Government of Saudi Arabia. "See," your letter says to them, "even though the Constitution does not allow Government censorship, of fact or fiction, we diplomats are fine fellows who will try to bend even our most sacred principles on your behalf." But in this accommodating climate, which ranking American official is left to defend the Constitution? Not the President, not the Acting Secretary of State, not even any of their subordinates. The person on whom the United States is left to depend as protector of the Constitution is a man named Lawrence Grossman. And he is not a government official at all; he is president of PBS. Your background, Mr. Secretary, makes it inconceivable that you are ignorant of the commands of the Constitution and the rich history of constitutional law that surrounds it. How could you be, having once served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Douglas and later as Deputy Attorney General of the United States? It is thus equally inconceivable that you could have willingly sent such a letter to Mr. Grossman. So it must have been on orders. Who gives orders to the Secretary of State? We're not sure, but we have a suspicion.

We think it might be a fellow who once raised his hand and said he would "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The same fellow who put the sign on his desk that reads, "The Buck Stops Here." cc: Mr. Lawrence K. Grossman 25 Years Later - The 'death Of A Princess' Controversy | Death Of A Princess | FRONTLINE | PBS WATCH SCHEDULE TOPICS ABOUT FRONTLINE SHOP TEACHER CENTER This Harvard University-sponsored research paper was published in 1983, three years after the film's broadcast. Its authors examine how the furor over the film illuminated the world's growing economic interdependence as well as the impact of new media and information technologies on global culture and politics. This excerpt from the paper provides an overview of how the "Princess" controversy played out over the weeks leading up to the film's broadcast. From "The 'Death of a Princess' Controversy" by Thomas White and Gladys Ganley, Copyright © 1983. This excerpt is reprinted here by permission of the Program on Information Resources Policy (PIRP), Harvard University. Read a PDF version of the full research paper .

The Opening Guns In autumn 1977, British filmmaker Anthony [sic] Thomas heard talk of the princess story at a London dinner party. On July 15 of that year, 19-year old Princess Mish'al [sic], a great niece of the Saudi king, and her 20-year-old lover, the son of a senior Saudi general, had been publicly executed in Saudi Arabia. They had committed adultery, a capital offense under Islamic law 1 . The execution had originally escaped notice in the west, but, nearly six months after the event, the victims were identified. Then: "... the story escalated into international headlines about 'the Princess who died for love'." Although the story was suppressed in Arab countries, it was widely circulated there by word of mouth. An Arab storyteller in the film: ... described the princess as having changed while attending college in Beirut. Exposed to radical politics, the Palestinians, women's liberation and assorted Western influences, she rebelled against her country's traditional ways, going so far as to reject the royal cousin who had been chosen as her husband-to-be. Accused of adultery with a young man from Beirut, she publicly confessed her sin, even while the king was begging her to reconsider.

The Arab storyteller saw the princess as a symbol for the "whole Arab predicament: How much of our past must we abandon? How much of your present is worth imitating." Intrigued by the story of the princess, Thomas convinced producers at England's Associated Television Corporation (ATV) and WGBH (Boston's public television station) to permit him to make the film. In this truly international enterprise, Mr. Thomas raised £100,000 from Associated Television Corporation, and additional monies from television companies in Holland, the U.S., Japan, Australia and New Zealand. WGBH of Boston, a member of PBS is said to have furnished at least one quarter of a required $430,000. The film was aired first in Great Britain and then presented as a special in the PBS "World" series, with other countries buying rights to show it from Telepictures, Inc. During the next several months, Thomas is said to have conducted dozens of interviews with Saudis who claimed they had either witnessed or known of the execution. The program was produced jointly by WGBH Educational Foundation, a licensee of WGBH-TV, and by ATV Ltd. in London.

David Fanning of WGBH, the executive producer of "World," co-authored the script with Anthony Thomas, and Thomas served as the film's director. Within a year and a half, "Death of a Princess" was ready to be shown. The Saudi government had known for some time that the British were preparing to televise a film of unprecedented candor about life in Saudi Arabia. Before the film was publicly aired, several Saudi officials watched a private London screening and were deeply offended by it. The British government was informed that King Khalid was enraged by reports of the film's content. Informally, Saudi Arabia threatened to break off diplomatic relations and to suspend exports of oil to England. One account claims the Saudis offered more than $10 million to purchase the film outright to keep it from being shown. This was flatly denied by the Saudi Embassy in London, but people involved with the film indicated that some offer of payment had indeed been made. Prior to the first showing of "Death of a Princess" in Britain on April 9, 1980, the Saudis applied a series of real and perceived pressures in an effort to halt its being shown. These caused repercussions in multiple countries which continued over the next several weeks.

What Offended the Saudis Columbia University professor Edward Said argues in Covering Islam that the Muslim world has long resisted the probing eyes of the west. And, despite its ascension to power, Saudi Arabia had until this controversy been particularly successful in avoiding the scrutiny of the press. The film was perceived by Saudis as a violation of privacy since it represented a first look behind a closely drawn curtain into Islamic law as applied in Saudi Arabia, into Saudi culture, and, perhaps most devastating, into the behavior of members of the ruling regime. While damning the film, the Saudi royal family never denied that the actual execution of the princess and her lover took place. Prince Sultan, a brother of the then and the present king, is reported by BBC to have said: ... that the Kingdom had the honor to implement the Islamic Shari'a, (the divine law) without complaisance or distinction, between the ruler and the subject. HRH (His Royal Highness) said he was proud of this criticism because "we applied the Islamic Shari'a with justice and justice must apply to all." But Prince Sultan also said that the aim of the film was to insult Islam.

Much of Saudi criticism of the film was directed towards what was called its portrayal of Islam as a harsh, insensitive religion, since the princess was depicted as having been summarily executed without a confession or a trial. The severity of punishment and the speed with which the princess was executed put doubts in the minds of viewers as to the fairness of Koranic justice. Summary execution is not the norm in Saudi Arabia. Only about a dozen Saudis are executed annually and then only after a trial before a body of Ulema, Islamic judges. But there are those who say that the Saudis were really offended because: ... the film suggested that Prince Mohammed, the oldest surviving son of the Kingdom's founder, had done his granddaughter to death on charges of adultery which were not exposed to the rigours of an Islamic court, and it was a matter of rough family justice. In Saudi Arabia, there are many customary or imported laws, but the Constitutional Law of 1926 requires these be compatible with the Shari'a. ... Thus, the prince's action would have been the highest treason and must, at all costs, be kept secret... .

While Islamic law does prescribe the death penalty for adultery, it also requires four eye-witnesses to the act or a thrice repeated confession and it is thus almost impossible to prove. Former American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Egypt Hermann Eilts says that it is his understanding that Saudi private citizens firmly believe the execution was a family and not an Islamic matter. Further, he says there was a great deal of sympathy for Prince Mohammed. The behavior of his granddaughter was an intolerable blot on his family honor and, say private Saudis, in similar circumstances they would have done the same thing themselves. Eilts stresses the lack of comprehension of westerners of the meaning of honor to the Saudis and other Middle Eastern peoples. He felt this cultural misunderstanding caused a great deal of the bad feeling. However, he also stressed that an inability by the Saudis to understand public relations caused them to handle their legitimate concerns about the film shortsightedly. This poor handling led to undue publicity which attracted many otherwise disinterested viewers to what he considers a badly researched and balanced film. The Saudis also took special umbrage at a short scene in the film in which Saudi princesses were shown cruising the outer highways of Riyadh looking for men.

This scene was not only perceived by Saudis as an insult to Saudi women, but also, according to Michael Tingay, as a dishonor to the House of Saud. A former Middle Eastern correspondent for the Financial Times of London, Tingay argues that showing such alleged promiscuity among women of the royal family dishonored the Saudi Arabian woman, the family, and the tribe. Writes Tingay: The deep sense of shame created by the public portrayal of Saudi Arabian womanhood in this fashion is religious as well as tribal in origin. In the eyes of the Moslem purist, the Saudi Arabian royal family is responsible for any public dishonor. Departures from rectitude and orthodoxy, as perceived by religious fundamentalists, undermines the legitimacy of the House of Saud. Several critics and columnists noted this scene and some commented on it as being unnecessary and tasteless. The Economist said: One of the film's most gripping sequences was almost certainly unfair; scenes of the bored princesses at home listening and dancing to pop music were followed by their predatory drive into the desert to pick, behind their veils, a temporary mate. The evidence for the vacuity of the princesses' lives is more substantial than for the promiscuity of those desert raids.

Ambassador Eilts says that this scene is totally untrue and he feels cheapened the film's purpose. Aside from the essential facts that the execution did take place and that the princess's grandfather insisted upon this punishment, most of the story, says Eilts, was derived from Palestinian barroom type gossip in Beirut and elsewhere and from those who knew little about Saudi Arabia. New York Times reviewer John O'Connor points out what may have really upset the Saudis is that the film is actually about politics and not religion. The film discusses such questions as the political origins of the veil, and is directly interwoven with the history and passions of the current Middle Eastern political situation. "Death of a Princess" in Great Britain On April 9, 1980, Associated Television showed "Death of a Princess" to an estimated 10 million Britons. Although "rejecting Saudi pleas that the film be amended or scrapped..." ATV agreed to include an introductory comment that said: "… The program you are about to see is a dramatized reconstruction of certain events which took place in the Arab world between 1976 and 1978.

We have been asked to point out that equality for all before the law is regarded as paramount in the Moslem world. …" And the next day, the British Foreign Office released a statement saying: "We profoundly regret any offence which the program may have caused in Saudi Arabia. We have, of course, no power to interfere with the editorial content of programs, still less to ban them." On April 11, the Saudi Embassy in London called "Death of a Princess": "… an unprincipled attack on the religion of Islam and its 600 million people and on the way of life of Saudi Arabia, which is at the heart of the world of Islam." On the twenty-third of April, the government of Saudi Arabia requested Great Britain to withdraw its Ambassador to Jeddah, James Craig. Although a serious step, it was thought to be temporary. The British Foreign Office said that the Embassy staff would stay in Jeddah and the Embassy would remain open.

The decision to make this request, reached at a meeting of the Council headed by then Crown Prince Fahd was, according to the government-owned Saudi press agency: "… in the light of the British Government's negative attitude toward the screening of the shameful film." At that time, the Saudis also issued a statement saying it had carefully examined economic relations between the Kingdom and Britain, and especially the activity of British companies in the Kingdom. … The Soviets could not resist getting into the act. On April 12, 1980, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union in English (London) transmitted a story headlined "British-Saudi Relations: 'Big Scandal' over TV Film," and on the 24th of that month, another one called "The 'Scandal' in British-Saudi Arabian Relations." The Soviets used this opportunity to harangue the British: London, which was in a hurry to express "regret" and was trying to "reason" (with) the Saudi side, would like to reduce things only to a deplorable "incident".

In doing so, some people on the banks of the Thames prefer not to remember the long history of British Colonialism in the Middle and Near East, which was full of violence and intrigues, disrespect for the national cultural values and traditions of the Arabs and other peoples in that region. They fail to recollect also that it is precisely British colonialists, who were closely cooperating with the U.S. and other imperialist circles, that plundered and continue plundering the oil and other riches of other peoples in the region. On April 25, the Financial Times of London commented on British interests in Saudi Arabia apart from trade: In the 13 months to June last year construction contracts worth £288 million were awarded to U.K. companies. Britain has several large continuing contracts in Saudi Arabia, including the British Aerospace Corporation's Saudi Air Force, worth between £500 million and £850 million over the period 1977-1981, and a contract worth £148 million for cable and wireless to modernize the communications system of the National Guard. … British Aerospace is one of two competitors for a large Arabsat satellite communications contract, to be awarded by a multi-state Arab organisation based in Riyadh.

Forty thousand Britons are employed in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also England's largest export market in the Middle East and a diplomatic link for the British to the Arab world. In 1979, Great Britain exported about $2 billion in goods to Saudi Arabia, which is its eleventh largest market in the world. In 1979 Great Britain still got 16 percent of its oil from the Saudis. The vast funds at the disposal of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAHA) -- which British banks compete to manage and British bond markets seek to attract -- also made good relations between the two countries an important concern. And as a major arms purchaser, Saudi Arabia was a handsome potential customer for British weapons, especially its Nimrod aircraft. During the weeks following the screening of "Death of a Princess" in Great Britain, new limitations were placed on visas issued to British company executives in Saudi Arabia. In addition, a large U.S. construction firm was instructed not to subcontract to the British. And other pressures were brought to bear. British Airways suddenly was told that no further supersonic flights would be allowed over Saudi Arabia. Such a ban wiped out the profit from the Concorde's London-Singapore route.

Lebanon also banned British supersonic flights over its territory and the British were forced to seek new eastern air lanes. Despite the hardships inflicted by Saudi sanctions, the British made few soothing diplomatic moves. Lord Carrington did term the affair "unfortunate," with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issuing a statement saying: It is most unfortunate that Anglo-Saudi relations should have been damaged by a film for which the British government was in no way responsible and which it could not prevent from being shown on British TV or elsewhere. We hope it will be possible to restore relations on their normal level as soon as possible. And various British officials and members of Parliament took ATV to task for the film. The Financial Times reported remarks by Deputy Foreign Secretary Sir Ian Gilmore and others: "Sir Ian said that the whole genre (docudrama) was something to which the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and BBC should be giving very careful attention." Mr. Nicholas Winterton, a Conservative from Macclesfield: "… called on the Government to apologize to the Saudi Government and Royal Family for the film." Alleging that Mr.

Thomas: "… had a history of producing inaccurate and biased films," he wanted the government to ensure that "These Left-wingers do not have the power to undermine the best interests of the U.K." Labor backbencher Mr. Andrew Faulds, who is the spokesman for arts: "… criticized the irresponsibility and self interest of some of the bright boys of the media." While Mr. Peter Shore, Labor's front bench foreign affairs spokesman: "… urged the Minister to make it plain to the Saudi Government that Press and TV in Britain were not subject to Ministerial dictation." And David Winnick, a Labor member, said: "It is undignified to see a British Foreign Secretary virtually apologizing to a reactionary feudal state about what has been shown on TV in this country." In the media, meanwhile, the Financial Times editorialized: "There can be no firm guidelines on presenting events in the third world in a way that does not necessarily offend the sensitivities of local regimes. Attempts to work out a code through, for instance, the auspices of international bodies like UNESCO end up by distorting the truth. ..." "In the last resort..." said the editorial: "Judgment must remain with the individual organisation.

'Death of a Princess' is open to criticism. But that is not a reason for suppressing it." In late May, Prince Fahd, now the Saudi King, linked the "Princess" controversy to larger issue: Kuwait, 24th May: In a statement published here, the Saudi Crown Prince, Prince Fahd, described the film "The Death of a Princess" as part of a campaign designed to distract the attention of the Kingdom from Arab questions. … " Prince Fahd accused imperialism, communism and reaction or taking part in a fierce campaign against his country, saying that it began two years ago. He linked the campaign to the signing by the Egyptian President, Anwar as-Sadat [sic], of the Camp David accords with Israel.

He said: "The Zionist forces are trying to distract us with secondary battles from our attitude towards our nation and its just causes." At end May, then Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington remarked that the film was "deeply offensive" and said that he "wished it had never been shown." Speaking at a meeting sponsored by the Middle East Association, he noted, however that: "… It was not the government's role to ban a film because we do not like it or even because it hurts our friends." Asked whether his statement should be regarded as an apology, Carrington said it was "a statement of what Her Majesty's Government thinks." By July, the British ambassador was back in Jeddah, and within a few months normal privileges were restored to British businesses operating there. "Death of a Princess" in the United States At the outset, Public Broadcasting Service officials seemed calm about the substantial efforts the Saudis had made to suppress the showing of the film in England and in other countries. The day after the diplomatic rupture between Britain and Saudi Arabia, PBS officials were reported as saying: "… So far there had been no direct pressure from any official source.

…" And this was repeated in a May 2nd "Advisory to Editors": In recent days, serious questions have been raised regarding PBS's scheduling of DEATH OF A PRINCESS. As you know, this same program has already been broadcast in Britain and Holland, where it has caused considerable controversy. In that connection, I should emphasize that we have received no communication or expression of views on our broadcast of this program from any official of the United States government or of any other government. Pressed on the issue by reporters on April 24th, PBS Director of Current Affairs Programming, Barry Chase, said that PBS "would not alter its plans" for film airings. Mr. Chase is quoted as saying: It is a sensitive treatment of the Arab predicament, that a 1,400-year-old culture is being whipsawed by western influences while trying to adhere to the ancient principles. No one, not even the Saudis, allege that the program is inaccurate or untrue, but they are clearly embarrassed by the depiction of the royal life style. On April 11th, PBS issued a press release describing the uproar in Great Britain and stating that the film would be seen in the U.S.

as part of the PBS "World" series on May 12th 2 . It described the film as follows: The World special recounts a reporter's journey through the Arab world to investigate the life and death of a Saudi princess and her lover. While a dramatized account, "Death of a Princess" is based on transcripts and records relating to the actual public execution of Princess Misha'al, granddaughter of Prince Mohammed, the elder brother of Saudi King Khalid. "Death of a Princess" describes Misha'al's confinement in a women's palace after the collapse of an arranged marriage to a royal cousin. The film infers that, after being prevented from leaving Saudi Arabia with her lover, Misha'al was denied due process of Islamic law. The two lovers were summarily put to death in a public place. The news release quotes Executive Producer Fanning as saying that the intent of the film was to offer a sensitive view of circumstances which "lent themselves" to this tragedy: The film is far from an attack. … It's a very sophisticated journey into the private circles of the Arab world. … The girl is a symbol of the Arab predicament -- someone stretched three ways between the West, radical Arab politics and the strict ethic of the desert.

Both (Producer/Director) Anthony Thomas and I share a great concern for the Arab world. Four days before the film was to be broadcast in the U.S., Mobil Oil Company proclaimed its opposition. On May 8th, it ran an advertisement on the Op-Ed page of half a dozen newspapers, including The New York Times. This "advertorial" questioned the artistic integrity of producer Anthony Thomas, asserting that his reliance on fictional characters and reconstructed conversations was deceptive. It intimated that the privilege of freedom of the press was being abused. Mobil also claimed that public support of PBS entitled the U.S. government to special concern over the film. It concluded with the hope that PBS would: "... review its decision to run this film, and exercise responsible judgment in the light of what is in the best interest of the United States." As one of the "Four Sisters" -- along with Exxon, Texaco, and Socal -- in the oil producing partnership Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), Mobil has a substantial interest in Saudi Arabia's well-being. ARAMCO at that time produced nearly 75 percent of Saudi Arabia's petroleum. Mobil is also important to PBS.

The company spent $2.3 million in 1979, and at that time was expected to spend about $3.2 million in 1980 to underwrite programming on public television. Although the company did not threaten to withhold future funding for PBS ventures because of its disapproval of "Death of a Princess," the fact that it had contributed $30 million to public broadcasting over the preceding decade surely did not go unnoticed. On the day the Mobil ads were placed, WGBH president, David O. Ives: "... said that he had no reason to believe that airing the film would 'affect our relationship with them (Mobil) as funders of different kinds of programming.'" Exxon, another partner in ARAMCO, also supports public television in the amount of $4 million annually. A spokesman for that company said that showing "Death of a Princess" would not affect its relationship with PBS. Exxon told reporters that it: "… had heard from the Saudis about the film and had passed the objections on to the State Department. …" Some of the industry officials of other ARAMCO companies were, at that time, said to be privately concerned that, if the film were shown, the Saudis might cut their oil production.

A day later, then acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher expressed reservations about the film. On May 9th, Mr. Christopher sent a letter to PBS president Lawrence Grossman relaying the concerns of the Saudi government, which had been expressed in a letter from Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Sheik Faisal Alhegelan. In this letter, Christopher also conveyed his own reservations about the sensitive nature of the film's contents. The Christopher letter reads as follows: I am enclosing a letter just received from the Ambassador to the United States of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expressing his Government's deep concern about reports the film "Death of a Princess" will be shown on the Public Broadcasting System. As you will see, the Ambassador's letter explains why his Government was deeply offended by the televising of the film in the United Kingdom. I want to assure you that the Government of the United States cannot and will not attempt to exercise any power of censorship over the Public Broadcasting System. We have no doubt that, in the exercise of (y)our programming judgment, you will give appropriate consideration to the sensitive religious and cultural issues involved and assure that viewers are given a full and balanced presentation.

The letter enclosed by Christopher from Saudi Ambassador Alhegelan read: My government has asked me to express concern to you about the showing of the television film "Death of a Princess" on your country's Public Broadcasting System now scheduled for May 12. We have recently received a recording of the film as shown in England and find it contains many inaccuracies, distortions and falsehoods. The documentary style of the picture is so convincingly done that I fear the casual viewer could consider it a collection of factual and historical events when in reality it is just the opposite. The film shows a completely false picture of the life, religion, customs, and traditions of Saudi Arabia. It also, in many ways, is disparaging to the Muslim religion. The film is therefore offensive, not only to Saudi Arabia but to the entire Islamic world. We recognize your constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression, and it is not my purpose to suggest any infringements upon those rights. However, we feel that you and other responsible officials of your Government would want to know of our concern and the reasons therefore before the film is shown in the United States. Enclosed is material relating to the film which points out a number of inaccuracies and falsehoods in it.

I would appreciate your considering these facts and, if you feel it appropriate, convey our concerns to the Public Broadcasting System. We trust that the Public Broadcasting System or other news media will determine for themelves [sic] what the fictitious items and distortions are and will not report them to the American public as fact. A major concern to us has always been the lack of adequate understanding between our cultures and our people of each other's way of life, our religions, our customs and our practices. We continue to feel that increasing understanding of these things can only benefit our nations and the world as a whole. Some of the comments which were included with the Alhegelan letter were expressed as "insults." They were keyed to specific pages of the script and listed as follows: "Some of the 'Insults to Islam &/or Arabs' "Frustration and the 'feeling of revolt' is no excuse for the crime of adultry [sic]. "--- nor is material wealth an excuse for adultry [sic]. "The Law applies to all! "'Love' is no excuse for adultry [sic]. "To many of the Islamic faith the veil is worn with pride. "False impression of the selection of leaders.

"The sword dances are a tradition of respect to warriors of an earlier time. "Islamic courts are degraded. Weekly Classics: Death of a princess - Blogs - DAWN.COM Weekly Classics: Death of a princess Print With the recent outrage in many Muslim countries over an obscure YouTube video that has prompted condemnation, it’s important to look at the incident in a wider perspective. What many people don’t remember is that before the controversy over the video, before the uproar over Danish cartoons and before Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie, there was controversy over a docudrama that threatened to have serious ramifications between the West and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In 1980 the British Television channel ATV and the American television network PBS broadcasted a controversial docudrama called ‘Death of a Princess’ which told the true story of a Saudi princess named Misha’al bint Fahd al Saud who had been executed for adultery along with her 20-year-old lover Khaled Mulhallal al Sha’er. She had allegedly committed adultery by becoming romantically involved him, a serious no-no in Saudi society for the simple fact that they were unmarried.

She tried to escape from the country disguised as a man but was caught along with Khaled at the Jeddah Airport and promptly returned to her family. Under Saudi law, to be convicted you had to produce four male witnesses to the actual act of adultery or simply have one of the accused confess three times to having committed the offence. The princess’s family begged her not to confess and simply promise not to see the young man anymore. She refused and readily admitted to the charges, as a result she was condemned to death. At least that was the official version from the Saudi government. In reality, it’s probable that there had been no trial and she had simply been executed, on charges of adultery, for simply bringing dishonor to the family, which after all was ruling the roost in the country. Her execution had taken place in 1977 and received international coverage but soon died out. It was only after the film was broadcasted that her execution and the events surrounding it received wider audiences and shocked people about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. It’s also important to remember that in 1980, the Islamic world was put under a big microscope by the outside world due to events that were unfolding within its geography.

The Iranian Revolution in 1979 had just overthrown the Shah of Iran and American diplomats were being held hostage in Tehran. The Grand Mosque in Mecca had been seized by militants and the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. Here in Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq’s ‘Islamisation’ programme was under full swing and Egypt had just signed a peace treaty with Israel. With all these seismic events taking place, many countries, particularly the Western nations were taking a greater interest in the politics and culture of the Islamic world. The so-called ‘Islamic revival’ made people in the West sit-up and take a closer look at the people, who in all essence, held the keys to the petrol pumps that were generating their economies. No Middle Eastern country back then and now, held a greater economic value to the West than Saudi Arabia. It had the world’s largest oil reserves and as the birthplace of Islam was symbolically very important as an ally in the politics of the Cold War. Due to this ground reality, the West has normally looked the other way when it comes to the Kingdom’s abysmal human rights record, particularly when it comes to women.

Having said that it is also important to note that Saudi Arabia is a very conservative society and the people there, including women, don’t take too kindly to outsiders lecturing them about democracy and human rights. The late Edward Said wrote in his book ‘Covering Islam’ that Muslim countries have always resisted the critical eyes of the West. Saudi Arabia and the criticism of its closed society is a case in point. So when British director and journalist, Anthony Thomas first heard about the story of ‘the Princess who died for love’ at a London dinner party in 1977, he became intrigued. He pitched the idea about making a film about the incident to Britain’s ATV and Boston’s WGBH (which was a member of PBS) and received the green light. Having raised money from the two corporations along with companies in Holland, Australia and Japan, he then proceeded to conduct several interviews with people in the Middle East who had allegedly seen the execution or had heard about it and were deeply affected by it. In the end he directed the movie in the vein of a docudrama for an added dramatic effect.

In the film, Thomas is played as a journalist named Christopher Ryder (Paul Freeman) who like his real counterpart becomes fascinated by Princess Misha’al and her execution. Haunted by her story, Ryder travels to Beirut and ‘Arabia’ to interview people who knew the princess well, felt a sense of solidarity with her dilemma or simply condemned the actions that brought about her death. Whether it’s a German nanny who worked for the Saudi royal family, or ordinary Arabs trying to make sense of the events surrounding them, they are all affected by her story. One Arab in the film (played by Zia Mohyeddin) sums it up best, the princess was a symbol of the “whole Arab predicament; How much of our past must we abandon? How much of your present is worth imitating?” Despite hearing all these testimonies and views, Ryder is still baffled. Each person gives a ‘Rashamon’ style view of the events. Whether it Palestinians, Lebanese or Saudi officials, everyone has an opinion. They either support her rebellious action against a patriarchal society or criticise her for forgetting who she was and what was expected of a person of her background.

The more liberal and secular Lebanese and Palestinians support her, while conservative Saudi citizens feel that she got what she deserved. Whatever the viewpoint may be, Ryder is confused and simply cannot make head or tails of it. This bewilderment in a sense symbolises the inability for Westerners to understand Arab and Muslim societies. Issues such as honor, family, respect for cultural sensitivities and traditions don’t mean much in modern Western countries, but it does mean a great deal for the Arabs. In the end, Ryder returns to the UK and ends up the same as he was at the start of the film, completely bamboozled and unable to put a full stop to the princess’s story. When ‘Death of a Princess’ finished filming, director Anthony Thomas apparently asked an Egyptian if he felt that there would be a backlash against it by the Saudi government. The Egyptian told him that they probably wouldn’t give a fig about. As it turned out Saudi officials had gotten word about it and were outraged by it, especially after they had seen an early viewing of it in London. They then responded with a thorough condemnation accusing the filmmakers of smearing the Saudi society.

Under pressure, but refusing to shelve the film, ATV decided to put an introductory quote to the film which simply states: “The program you are about to see is a dramatised reconstruction of events which took place in the Arab world between 1976 and 1978. We have been asked to point out that equality for all before the law is regarded as paramount in the Moslem world.” But this didn’t satisfy the Saudi government who as it turned out threatened to cut diplomatic relations, along with lucrative business deals with the UK, over the film. This raised alarm bells in the corridors of power in London. The British Foreign Office issued a statement stating; “It is most unfortunate that Anglo-Saudi relations should have been damaged by a film for which the British government was in no way responsible and which it could not prevent from being shown on British TV or elsewhere. We hope it will be possible to restore relations on their normal level as soon as possible.” At the same time many free speech activists were aghast at seeing democratic governments kowtowing to an absolute monarchy over a docudrama.

One Labor Party MP said that; “It is undignified to see a British Foreign Secretary virtually apologising to a reactionary feudal state about what has been shown on TV in this country.” The Saudi’s eventually did sway several Arab countries to ban the film, including Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon and Egypt. The Egyptian actress Suzanne Abou Taleb, who played the princess in the film, was severely criticised for participating in the production of the film. With the exception of Israel, no other country in the Middle East allowed the film to be broadcasted on television. However, with the advent of VCR’s at that time, copies of the film did filter through into several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. This film is important for several reasons, the most important of which is that the controversy that surrounded it in 1980 and the issues that were raised by it still resonate to this day. Whether it is about striking a balance between freedom of speech and respecting cultural sensitivities. Or simply the friction that comes about with a more interdependent world, all that is weighed in here. Another important point to make here is that technology and the free flow of information makes it virtually impossible to shut out controversial subjects.

Having an obscurantist approach to issues does not help; in fact it only makes things worse no matter how legitimate the grievance is. You can call this film propaganda, a mishmash of facts or whatever else. But it was a landmark in the docudrama genre and showed how international relations can seriously be affected by film making. *Quotes used in the review are from a study on the film titled “Death of a Princess” controversy by Thomas White and Gladys Ganley; published by Harvard University.

Question: Death of a Princess, a TV drama based on a real event, caused a diplomatic incident between Britain and which country in 1980?
Answer: Saudi Arabia